....Be it nuclear, fuel cell or even solar, as the source of electricity, mass is being expended in the form of electrons. (Solar is taking advantage of the Sun's own expendature of mass in the form of photons). Whiloe the quantity of mass being expended is minute, it IS being expended. ...

Even if (for discussion's sake) mass would be converted into energy with a nuclear reaction E=mc^2 inside the spacecraft to provide the electricity for the EM Drive, that does not solve the conundrum: the issue is not "to expend energy", the issue is to satisfy conservation of momentum. If no mass leaves the spacecraft, while kinetic energy is converted into a change in momentum of the spacecraft's center of mass, you still have the same conundrum and the same paradoxes I previously noted:

The needed power for the EM Drive (to escape the surface of the Earth, or anything else you want the spacecraft to do) depends on your frame of reference.

As Paul March himself admitted, for their Quantum Vacuum explanation for the EM Drive to hold, they need to disrespect the mainstream physics assumption that the Quantum Vacuum is indestructible and immutable.

Bottom line: no, "according to basic physics, it should" not be possible to directly convert electrical energy into a spacecraft's momentum change without any change in mass of the spacecraft (or the action of external forces). If the EM Drive were to work for space propulsion, it certainly would not be explainable in terms of mainstream physics where conservation of momentum is paramount, and the Quantum Vacuum is both indestructible and immutable.

Just being curious: What, in your book, would be the most important theoretical consequences of the discovery of a different QV nature?

If the QV is not immutable and indestructible, the theoretical and practical consequences would be so groundbreaking that they would make the 20th century's discoveries of atomic and nuclear energy pale in comparison.

....Be it nuclear, fuel cell or even solar, as the source of electricity, mass is being expended in the form of electrons. (Solar is taking advantage of the Sun's own expendature of mass in the form of photons). Whiloe the quantity of mass being expended is minute, it IS being expended. ...

Even if (for discussion's sake) mass would be converted into energy with a nuclear reaction E=mc^2 inside the spacecraft to provide the electricity for the EM Drive, that does not solve the conundrum: the issue is not "to expend energy", the issue is to satisfy conservation of momentum. If no mass leaves the spacecraft, while kinetic energy is converted into a change in momentum of the spacecraft's center of mass, you still have the same conundrum and the same paradoxes I previously noted:

The needed power for the EM Drive (to escape the surface of the Earth, or anything else you want the spacecraft to do) depends on your frame of reference.

As Paul March himself admitted, for their Quantum Vacuum explanation for the EM Drive to hold, they need to disrespect the mainstream physics assumption that the Quantum Vacuum is indestructible and immutable.

Bottom line: no, "according to basic physics, it should" not be possible to directly convert electrical energy into a spacecraft's momentum change without any change in mass of the spacecraft (or the action of external forces). If the EM Drive were to work for space propulsion, it certainly would not be explainable in terms of mainstream physics where conservation of momentum is paramount, and the Quantum Vacuum is both indestructible and immutable.

Just being curious: What, in your book, would be the most important theoretical consequences of the discovery of a different QV nature?

If the QV is not immutable and indestructible, the theoretical and practical consequences would be so groundbreaking that they would make the 20th century's discoveries of atomic and nuclear energy pale in comparison.

Could you expand on that to help out a poor layperson to these matters, I hadn't realised that the QV being described in this way was such a fundamental cornerstone of physics as it stands?

....Just being curious: What, in your book, would be the most important theoretical consequences of the discovery of a different QV nature?

If the QV is not immutable and indestructible, the theoretical and practical consequences would be so groundbreaking that they would make the 20th century's discoveries of atomic and nuclear energy pale in comparison.

Could you expand on that to help out a poor layperson to these matters, I hadn't realised that the QV being described in this way was such a fundamental cornerstone of physics as it stands?

The mainstream physics community assumes the Quantum Vacuum is indestructible and immutable because of the experimental observation that a fundamental particle like an electron (or a positron) has the same properties (e.g. mass, charge or spin), regardless of when or where the particle was created, whether now or in the early universe, through astrophysical processes or in a laboratory. Another reason is that the Quantum Vacuum has what Albert Einstein in 1913 called "Nullpunktsenergie" (zero point energy): the lowest possible (time-averaged) energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have.

If the Quantum Vacuum is instead like a fluid (experiencing vortices and streamlines for example) as Paul March hinted (perhaps because our universe is part of a higher multidimensional multiverse as described by string theory and the QV was there before the Big Bang) and if it can be used for space propulsion, it may also be used for energy (as a loose analogy one can use the wind to sail the ocean as well as to produce energy with windmills) for peaceful as well as for destructive purposes... Of course, this is just science fiction at the moment, certainly as to the destructive purposes (as we cannot yet even control the weather for destructive purposes, although we have been able to use the wind for sailing and energy production for centuries).

....Just being curious: What, in your book, would be the most important theoretical consequences of the discovery of a different QV nature?

If the QV is not immutable and indestructible, the theoretical and practical consequences would be so groundbreaking that they would make the 20th century's discoveries of atomic and nuclear energy pale in comparison.

Could you expand on that to help out a poor layperson to these matters, I hadn't realised that the QV being described in this way was such a fundamental cornerstone of physics as it stands?

The mainstream physics community assumes the Quantum Vacuum is indestructible and immutable because of the experimental observation that a fundamental particle like an electron (or a positron) has the same properties (e.g. mass, charge or spin), regardless of when or where the particle was created, whether now or in the early universe, through astrophysical processes or in a laboratory. Another reason is that the Quantum Vacuum has what Albert Einstein in 1913 called "Nullpunktsenergie" (zero point energy): the lowest possible (time-averaged) energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have.

If the Quantum Vacuum is instead like a fluid (experiencing vortices and streamlines for example) as Paul March hinted (perhaps because our universe is part of a higher multidimensional multiverse as described by string theory and the QV was there before the Big Bang) and if it can be used for space propulsion, it may also be used for energy (as a loose analogy one can use the wind to sail the ocean as well as to produce energy with windmills) for peaceful as well as for destructive purposes... Of course, this is just science fiction at the moment, certainly as to the destructive purposes (as we cannot yet even control the weather for destructive purposes, although we have been able to use the wind for sailing and energy production for centuries).

Is there record of a previously carried out experiment where the properties of a fundamental particle were measured in an environment identical to that which exists inside of the tapered frustum at EagleWorks?

....Just being curious: What, in your book, would be the most important theoretical consequences of the discovery of a different QV nature?

If the QV is not immutable and indestructible, the theoretical and practical consequences would be so groundbreaking that they would make the 20th century's discoveries of atomic and nuclear energy pale in comparison.

Could you expand on that to help out a poor layperson to these matters, I hadn't realised that the QV being described in this way was such a fundamental cornerstone of physics as it stands?

The mainstream physics community assumes the Quantum Vacuum is indestructible and immutable because of the experimental observation that a fundamental particle like an electron (or a positron) has the same properties (e.g. mass, charge or spin), regardless of when or where the particle was created, whether now or in the early universe, through astrophysical processes or in a laboratory. Another reason is that the Quantum Vacuum has what Albert Einstein in 1913 called "Nullpunktsenergie" (zero point energy): the lowest possible (time-averaged) energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have.

If the Quantum Vacuum is instead like a fluid (experiencing vortices and streamlines for example) as Paul March hinted (perhaps because our universe is part of a higher multidimensional multiverse as described by string theory and the QV was there before the Big Bang) and if it can be used for space propulsion, it may also be used for energy (as a loose analogy one can use the wind to sail the ocean as well as to produce energy with windmills) for peaceful as well as for destructive purposes... Of course, this is just science fiction at the moment, certainly as to the destructive purposes (as we cannot yet even control the weather for destructive purposes, although we have been able to use the wind for sailing and energy production for centuries).

Thank you for that clear explanation, is it something that could ever be proved either way experimentally? It sounds a little like the assumption that Gravity is the same everywhere in the universe which some are now disputing. But that's thread drift again.

....Just being curious: What, in your book, would be the most important theoretical consequences of the discovery of a different QV nature?

If the QV is not immutable and indestructible, the theoretical and practical consequences would be so groundbreaking that they would make the 20th century's discoveries of atomic and nuclear energy pale in comparison.

Could you expand on that to help out a poor layperson to these matters, I hadn't realised that the QV being described in this way was such a fundamental cornerstone of physics as it stands?

The mainstream physics community assumes the Quantum Vacuum is indestructible and immutable because of the experimental observation that a fundamental particle like an electron (or a positron) has the same properties (e.g. mass, charge or spin), regardless of when or where the particle was created, whether now or in the early universe, through astrophysical processes or in a laboratory. Another reason is that the Quantum Vacuum has what Albert Einstein in 1913 called "Nullpunktsenergie" (zero point energy): the lowest possible (time-averaged) energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have.

If the Quantum Vacuum is instead like a fluid (experiencing vortices and streamlines for example) as Paul March hinted (perhaps because our universe is part of a higher multidimensional multiverse as described by string theory and the QV was there before the Big Bang) and if it can be used for space propulsion, it may also be used for energy (as a loose analogy one can use the wind to sail the ocean as well as to produce energy with windmills) for peaceful as well as for destructive purposes... Of course, this is just science fiction at the moment, certainly as to the destructive purposes (as we cannot yet even control the weather for destructive purposes, although we have been able to use the wind for sailing and energy production for centuries).

OK.. if I understand this correctly, I think an example would then be a possibility to extract energy from gravitational fields, because one could then view gravitating bodies as a drain for this 'fluid' space and use the 'space current' for energy production? Sounds.. interesting, to say the least. I can see why this would have enormous implications.

....Just being curious: What, in your book, would be the most important theoretical consequences of the discovery of a different QV nature?

If the QV is not immutable and indestructible, the theoretical and practical consequences would be so groundbreaking that they would make the 20th century's discoveries of atomic and nuclear energy pale in comparison.

Could you expand on that to help out a poor layperson to these matters, I hadn't realised that the QV being described in this way was such a fundamental cornerstone of physics as it stands?

The mainstream physics community assumes the Quantum Vacuum is indestructible and immutable because of the experimental observation that a fundamental particle like an electron (or a positron) has the same properties (e.g. mass, charge or spin), regardless of when or where the particle was created, whether now or in the early universe, through astrophysical processes or in a laboratory. Another reason is that the Quantum Vacuum has what Albert Einstein in 1913 called "Nullpunktsenergie" (zero point energy): the lowest possible (time-averaged) energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have.

If the Quantum Vacuum is instead like a fluid (experiencing vortices and streamlines for example) as Paul March hinted (perhaps because our universe is part of a higher multidimensional multiverse as described by string theory and the QV was there before the Big Bang) and if it can be used for space propulsion, it may also be used for energy (as a loose analogy one can use the wind to sail the ocean as well as to produce energy with windmills) for peaceful as well as for destructive purposes... Of course, this is just science fiction at the moment, certainly as to the destructive purposes (as we cannot yet even control the weather for destructive purposes, although we have been able to use the wind for sailing and energy production for centuries).

Thank you for that clear explanation, is it something that could ever be proved either way experimentally? It sounds a little like the assumption that Gravity is the same everywhere in the universe which some are now disputing. But that's thread drift again.

The movie Interstellar counted with a team of leading, well respected, academic Physicists, led by Kip Thorne from CalTech as consultants. Look at the end of Interstellar for what some leading physicists think that the future may bring (the part after the leading actor comes back from the black hole)...

we use the fact that, when real photons are emitted (and propagate at the speed of light), the photons leave a small afterglow of virtual photons that propagate slower than light. This afterglow does not carry energy (in contrast to real photons), but it does carry information about the event that generated the light. Receivers can 'tap' into that afterglow, spending energy to recover information about light that passed by a long time ago

We show that it is possible to use a massless field in the vacuum to communicate in such a way that the signal travels arbitrarily slower than the speed of light and such that no energy is transmitted from the sender to the receiver. Instead, the receiver has to supply a signal-dependent amount of work to switch his detector on and off. This type of communication is related to Casimir-like interactions, and it is made possible by dimension—and curvature—dependent subtleties of Huygens’ principle.

In theory, according to basic physics, it should be possible to convert one form of energy into another, such as kinetic energy being converted to heat energy as a vehicle is decellerated via air during reentry. ...

If electrical energy can be converted directly into spacecraft's momentum, without any matter or energy leaving the spacecraft then many problems appear.

One interesting problem has been repeatedly pointed out by @frobnicat in this thread. Since the kinetic energy is:

K = (1/2) m v^2

The power needed to accelerate (a question appearing in this thread over the last few pages concerning a comparison with chemical rockets) is dK/dt,and since in this EM Drive spacecraft, the mass doesn't change, the only thing that changes is the velocity, therefore:

dK/dt = (1/2) m [2 v dv/dt] = m v a

So the power needed to accelerate is a function of not only the acceleration wanted, but also the speed at which you're currently traveling. But, according to relativity, there is no absolute measurement of spacecraft speed, it depends on the observer. So, the needed power (to escape the surface of the Earth, etc.) depends on your frame of reference.

So, no, "according to basic physics, it should" not be possible to directly convert electrical energy into a spacecraft's momentum change without any change in mass of the spacecraft (or the action of external forces).

There are several paradoxes with the EM Drive related to this.

A possible exception to this restriction is the lorentz force. Satellites use torque coils to dump angular momentum. Space tethers, if they ever are shown to work, transfer momentum to the Earth when current flowing along the tether is normal to the Earth's magnetic field. The return path is provided by ions. In fact any current-carrying wire experiences a lorentz force with a direction that is the cross product of the current direction and the magnetic field direction. The force is the same if the wire is stationary or is moving. So, in the case of an electrodynamic tether the restriction:

....Be it nuclear, fuel cell or even solar, as the source of electricity, mass is being expended in the form of electrons. (Solar is taking advantage of the Sun's own expendature of mass in the form of photons). Whiloe the quantity of mass being expended is minute, it IS being expended. ...

Even if (for discussion's sake) mass would be converted into energy with a nuclear reaction E=mc^2 inside the spacecraft to provide the electricity for the EM Drive, that does not solve the conundrum: the issue is not "to expend energy", the issue is to satisfy conservation of momentum. If no mass leaves the spacecraft, while kinetic energy is converted into a change in momentum of the spacecraft's center of mass, you still have the same conundrum and the same paradoxes I previously noted:

The needed power for the EM Drive (to escape the surface of the Earth, or anything else you want the spacecraft to do) depends on your frame of reference.

As Paul March himself admitted, for their Quantum Vacuum explanation for the EM Drive to hold, they need to disrespect the mainstream physics assumption that the Quantum Vacuum is indestructible and immutable.

Bottom line: no, "according to basic physics, it should" not be possible to directly convert electrical energy into a spacecraft's momentum change without any change in mass of the spacecraft (or the action of external forces). If the EM Drive were to work for space propulsion, it certainly would not be explainable in terms of mainstream physics where conservation of momentum is paramount, and the Quantum Vacuum is both indestructible and immutable.

Just being curious: What, in your book, would be the most important theoretical consequences of the discovery of a different QV nature?

If the QV is not immutable and indestructible, the theoretical and practical consequences would be so groundbreaking that they would make the 20th century's discoveries of atomic and nuclear energy pale in comparison.

Dr. Rodal:

"If the QV is not immutable and indestructible,''')

We've not tired to make that a secret and in fact that is at the core of our Q-V conjecture and Q-V plasma code that Dr. White and Dr. Vera have written that produced the Q-Thruster thrust predictions that I posted earlier on this forum. And this new paper is an expansion of Dr. White's STAIF-2007 conjecture and a partial rebuttal to the criticisms raised by the NASA Blue Ribbon panel's critique from last summer, an independent body of eight PhDs knowledge in the field that was created by NASA/JSC/EP management to vet Dr. White's QVF/MHD conjecture. And yes, if the accumulated chemical and nuclear data keeps pointing us in the same direction as it and our own experimental data has so far, we will be able to transmit and receive momentum through the Q-V via Q-Thruster like device. AND ultimately, be able harvest energy from the Q-V based cosmological gravitational field via various thermodynamic processes, at least in the far term. So find attached the Abstract and Introduction of our "Dynamics of the Vacuum" paper that will be out on the NASA servers hopefully by the end of April.

....Just being curious: What, in your book, would be the most important theoretical consequences of the discovery of a different QV nature?

If the QV is not immutable and indestructible, the theoretical and practical consequences would be so groundbreaking that they would make the 20th century's discoveries of atomic and nuclear energy pale in comparison.

Could you expand on that to help out a poor layperson to these matters, I hadn't realised that the QV being described in this way was such a fundamental cornerstone of physics as it stands?

The mainstream physics community assumes the Quantum Vacuum is indestructible and immutable because of the experimental observation that a fundamental particle like an electron (or a positron) has the same properties (e.g. mass, charge or spin), regardless of when or where the particle was created, whether now or in the early universe, through astrophysical processes or in a laboratory. Another reason is that the Quantum Vacuum has what Albert Einstein in 1913 called "Nullpunktsenergie" (zero point energy): the lowest possible (time-averaged) energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have.

If the Quantum Vacuum is instead like a fluid (experiencing vortices and streamlines for example) as Paul March hinted (perhaps because our universe is part of a higher multidimensional multiverse as described by string theory and the QV was there before the Big Bang) and if it can be used for space propulsion, it may also be used for energy (as a loose analogy one can use the wind to sail the ocean as well as to produce energy with windmills) for peaceful as well as for destructive purposes... Of course, this is just science fiction at the moment, certainly as to the destructive purposes (as we cannot yet even control the weather for destructive purposes, although we have been able to use the wind for sailing and energy production for centuries).

I have been toying with a similar idea myself. The idea was connected with the idea of space time as a super-fluid. Our motion with respect to another bodies surrounding super-fluid gives the effects of time dilation and pancaking possibly. I wanted to connect it with the idea that a ship resists acceleration because it is accelerating its local space though I have to admit this may be a bit far fetched.

The idea extends to earths gravity and uses matter as if it is a hole in which the super-fluid flows into. But then where does it come out? - dark energy? -(don't know). So the fluid flows into the earth with increasing velocity by 1/r^2 and drags us. We observer the difference in velocity with respect to the space as the slowing of clocks also? As we go into the earth gravity decreases as the fluid disappears or the fluid velocity drops to zero linearly.

An initial thought I had looking at the equation was what if "v" is motion with respect to that fluid? Seems iffy to me but the thought was what if it could push that fluid. dK/dt = (1/2) m [2 v dv/dt] = m v aI know I hear a lot of people say not to use the 1/2 m*v^2=K for some matters and was thinking to taking a look at E=sqrt(p^2*c^2+m_o^2*c^4) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/releng.html and see what it would look like.

Another line of thought was the magnets out of phase (I mentioned earlier) by 90 degrees and 1/4\lambda appear to push by manipulating space and time information. The thought was I wonder if it is possible it could push space time because of that but I can't really say that idea would work for sure. There does seem to be a balance of static electric and relativistic magnetic edit:{forces} that oppose each other.

for 2.45ghz I get about 12.25cm spacing for 1/4 wavelength but used 3E8m/s. I will have to find dimensions of the cavities with magnetic fields and try and identify current loops with spacing. It would seem that if there were two current loops inside they should be 180 degrees out of phase because the 1st current loop would be a counter current of the 2nd current loop but maybe the conical cavity is changing that? Of course then there are the TM modes but I'm not thinking of those at the moment.

I think I have wanted to say space was a fluid after hearing how rotating black holes twist space into a vortex and thinking of earth gravity and acceleration in a space ship but I'm not convinced it is a fluid.

This is all very exciting. I cannot wait to read it and then pretend I understand.

The very best of luck to you Paul and your colleagues, and no pressure, but:

It's already past the point when the Eagleworks team should have found results or their funding gets pulled, and there has been no response to a contributor on this thread who asked a direct question about this point. I wouldn't get your hopes up.

This is all very exciting. I cannot wait to read it and then pretend I understand.

The very best of luck to you Paul and your colleagues, and no pressure, but:

It's already past the point when the Eagleworks team should have found results or their funding gets pulled, and there has been no response to a contributor on this thread who asked a direct question about this point. I wouldn't get your hopes up.

I would like to think that if it had been pulled there would be some indication of this, but there hasn't been so far, therefore it's reasonable to assume that either it hasn't or it is in the process of being reviewed.

In theory, according to basic physics, it should be possible to convert one form of energy into another, such as kinetic energy being converted to heat energy as a vehicle is decellerated via air during reentry. ...

If electrical energy can be converted directly into spacecraft's momentum, without any matter or energy leaving the spacecraft then many problems appear.

One interesting problem has been repeatedly pointed out by @frobnicat in this thread. Since the kinetic energy is:

K = (1/2) m v^2

The power needed to accelerate (a question appearing in this thread over the last few pages concerning a comparison with chemical rockets) is dK/dt,and since in this EM Drive spacecraft, the mass doesn't change, the only thing that changes is the velocity, therefore:

dK/dt = (1/2) m [2 v dv/dt] = m v a

So the power needed to accelerate is a function of not only the acceleration wanted, but also the speed at which you're currently traveling. But, according to relativity, there is no absolute measurement of spacecraft speed, it depends on the observer. So, the needed power (to escape the surface of the Earth, etc.) depends on your frame of reference.

So, no, "according to basic physics, it should" not be possible to directly convert electrical energy into a spacecraft's momentum change without any change in mass of the spacecraft (or the action of external forces).

There are several paradoxes with the EM Drive related to this.

A possible exception to this restriction is the lorentz force. Satellites use torque coils to dump angular momentum. Space tethers, if they ever are shown to work, transfer momentum to the Earth when current flowing along the tether is normal to the Earth's magnetic field. The return path is provided by ions. In fact any current-carrying wire experiences a lorentz force with a direction that is the cross product of the current direction and the magnetic field direction. The force is the same if the wire is stationary or is moving. So, in the case of an electrodynamic tether the restriction:

dK/dt = (1/2) m [2 v dv/dt] = m v a

Doesn't apply. How this applies to the EM-drive I can't even guess.

Notice that I had excluded magnetic tethers from these paradoxes:

Quote from: Rodal

"according to basic physics, it should" not be possible to directly convert electrical energy into a spacecraft's momentum change without any change in mass of the spacecraft (or the action of external forces).

Therefore, space tethers, had already been explicitly excluded under "the action of external forces".

Space tethers can only work through the action of the external magnetic force. One cannot get a space tether to work in space sufficiently away from the external magnetic field. Space tethers only work sufficiently close to magnetic fields, for example close to the magnetic field of the Earth.

Quote from: zen-in

How this applies to the EM-drive I can't even guess.

All that is needed is to consider whether the system is an open system or a closed system.

If there is no mass leaving the EM Drive and there are no external fields changing its momentum, it is a closed system.

If one considers the EM Drive as a closed system, as done for example by Shawyer in his "explanation" then there are paradoxes in the EM Drive as I wrote, due to the fact that

dK/dt = (1/2) m [2 v dv/dt] = m v a

implies a frame-dependence because the speed "v" is frame dependent.

On the other hand if one explains the EM Drive as an open system (for example due to coupling of electricity with gravitation, or any other external field) then there is no paradox, just like there is no paradox for magnetic tethers.

Again, what scientists find perturbing about the EM Drive is conservation of momentum. If the EM Drive is a closed system, then momentum is not conserved, which doesn't make scientific sense.

If the EM Drive is considered as an open system under the action of external forces, then momentum can be shown to be conserved and there is no paradox. Magnetic tethers work through the action of external magnetic forces, hence there is no issue with conservation of momentum.

This is all very exciting. I cannot wait to read it and then pretend I understand.

The very best of luck to you Paul and your colleagues, and no pressure, but:

It's already past the point when the Eagleworks team should have found results or their funding gets pulled, and there has been no response to a contributor on this thread who asked a direct question about this point. I wouldn't get your hopes up.

Whoops, let that one slip by. Just for the record I think due to team's other work on the theoretical side the Q-V, I was given a reprieve on my contract termination date until the end of September 2015. Management still wants us to perform and IV&V at Glenn Research Center (GRC), but appears to be willing to wait a few months more until we can get our arms around increasing the current test setup's thrust up to a repeatable 100+uN force every time we apply power. Right now its about every third time that I can find the "Just-So" conditions needed to evoke the thrust signature in the reversed thrust mode.

This is all very exciting. I cannot wait to read it and then pretend I understand.

The very best of luck to you Paul and your colleagues, and no pressure, but:

It's already past the point when the Eagleworks team should have found results or their funding gets pulled, and there has been no response to a contributor on this thread who asked a direct question about this point. I wouldn't get your hopes up.

Whoops, let that one slip by. Just for the record I think due to team's other work on the theoretical side the Q-V, I was given a reprieve on my contract termination date until the end of September 2015. Management still wants us to perform and IV&V at Glenn Research Center (GRC), but appears to be willing to wait a few months more until we can get our arms around increasing the current test setup's thrust up to a repeatable 100+uN force every time we apply power. Right now its about every third time that I can find the "Just-So" conditions needed to evoke the thrust signature in the reversed thrust mode.

Best, Paul M.

Is the inability to hit the "Just-So" conditions a side effect of some sort of degredation of either the cavity (as a result of thermal expansion or something similar) or the RF amplifier (failing while in vacuum)? If not can you share any ideas on what you think is impeding repeatability at the 100un level and above?

This is all very exciting. I cannot wait to read it and then pretend I understand.

The very best of luck to you Paul and your colleagues, and no pressure, but:

It's already past the point when the Eagleworks team should have found results or their funding gets pulled, and there has been no response to a contributor on this thread who asked a direct question about this point. I wouldn't get your hopes up.

Whoops, let that one slip by. Just for the record I think due to team's other work on the theoretical side the Q-V, I was given a reprieve on my contract termination date until the end of September 2015. Management still wants us to perform and IV&V at Glenn Research Center (GRC), but appears to be willing to wait a few months more until we can get our arms around increasing the current test setup's thrust up to a repeatable 100+uN force every time we apply power. Right now its about every third time that I can find the "Just-So" conditions needed to evoke the thrust signature in the reversed thrust mode.

Best, Paul M.

Is the inability to hit the "Just-So" conditions a side effect of some sort of degredation of either the cavity (as a result of thermal expansion or something similar) or the RF amplifier (failing while in vacuum)? If not can you share any ideas on what you think is impeding repeatability at the 100un level and above?

Hasn't he already mentioned issues with failures in some test equipment after a certain amount of use especially the RF amplifier.

....Be it nuclear, fuel cell or even solar, as the source of electricity, mass is being expended in the form of electrons. (Solar is taking advantage of the Sun's own expendature of mass in the form of photons). Whiloe the quantity of mass being expended is minute, it IS being expended. ...

Even if (for discussion's sake) mass would be converted into energy with a nuclear reaction E=mc^2 inside the spacecraft to provide the electricity for the EM Drive, that does not solve the conundrum: the issue is not "to expend energy", the issue is to satisfy conservation of momentum. If no mass leaves the spacecraft, while kinetic energy is converted into a change in momentum of the spacecraft's center of mass, you still have the same conundrum and the same paradoxes I previously noted:

The needed power for the EM Drive (to escape the surface of the Earth, or anything else you want the spacecraft to do) depends on your frame of reference.

As Paul March himself admitted, for their Quantum Vacuum explanation for the EM Drive to hold, they need to disrespect the mainstream physics assumption that the Quantum Vacuum is indestructible and immutable.

Bottom line: no, "according to basic physics, it should" not be possible to directly convert electrical energy into a spacecraft's momentum change without any change in mass of the spacecraft (or the action of external forces). If the EM Drive were to work for space propulsion, it certainly would not be explainable in terms of mainstream physics where conservation of momentum is paramount, and the Quantum Vacuum is both indestructible and immutable.

Alright, different angle.

Is the device creating a closed magnetic field? It may be possible that it maybe interacting with the Earth's own magnetic field in such a way as to "borrow" energy and momentum from the Earth's own magnetic field.

While very weak locally, it is pervasive and overall, has a tremendous amount of potentil energy that can be tapped into. The explaination may be as simple as that.

I take it the device has also been tested in a North / South and East / West orientations for potential motion induced be the Earth's own rotation?